aftermid

Is it possible that you could be open 8/22-8/25? I'm going to be in your town for work and would love to get in the tunnel.

Any estimated opening date?

Not exactly anthem's but... Good Times Bad Times - Led Zepplin Smells Like Teen Spirit - Nirvana Loving Cup - Rolling Stones St. Stephen - Grateful Dead Welcome to the Jungle - Guns and Roses

It IS ironic that a conservative Republican administration would promote governmental control over a private activity instead of letting the marketplace decide. But of course it's only about the Flag, not about any of the other (former) rights. Feels so good. Remember, it's an election year. Unfortunatly it isn't ironic with this adminstration. Other than the Religous Right and Megabussiness, its hard to find many ways that this administration has advanced any classic conservative platforms: -smaller government -less spending -domestic investment -less government intrussion At some point this adiminstration crossed the line from Republicans to Fascists. Again, do you support the burning of the flag? If so, shouldn't you support someone wanting to fly one? I don't advocate burning the flag, but I DEFINITLY don't support criminalizing that expression. I'm sure home owners associations have guidelines against burning flags as well. Guidelines agreeded to when the home is purchased. If you don't like the rules you agreed to then move. Let the government worry about other things: -war -skyrocketing fuel costs -Poor performance of the US dollar -Struggling education system

It IS ironic that a conservative Republican administration would promote governmental control over a private activity instead of letting the marketplace decide. But of course it's only about the Flag, not about any of the other (former) rights. Feels so good. Remember, it's an election year. Unfortunatly it isn't ironic with this adminstration. Other than the Religous Right and Megabussiness, its hard to find many ways that this administration has advanced any classic conservative platforms: -smaller government -less spending -domestic investment -less government intrussion At some point this adiminstration crossed the line from Republicans to Fascists.

Part of paying the Homeowner Association fees is micromanaging your neighbors. If you want to live in such a place then you should be able to. Let the market not the government decide what is appropriate.

I call Bullshit. "people in general dying" and "brownish people" does not jibe with that in the least. If you sit around and chear for war, then you get excited about "people in general dying". The "brownish people" part was more of an emotional response to what is a pretty sad state of affairs. you know, it really IS a sad state of affairs. but what really is the solution over there? will any nation really be the first to lay down their guns? should Israel be the first, only to let her enemies use that as the chance they've been waiting for to storm in and anhilate her? will there ever be peace in the middle east? I don't know what the answer is but this clearly isn't it. Maybe there could be a single democratic state in Isreal (including the West Bank and Gaza) where Muslims and Jews have equal access to social, political, and economic resourses. but how will that work when they, muslims and jews, hate each other so much and each think that the other's fundamental religious identity is flawed? Probably not really well. There would probably be a lot of political assasinations and violent protests, I'm sure a fair amount of terrorism on both sides. But maybe after generations there would be some comprimise and eventually cooperation. Maybe each side would move a little bit more to the middle over time. Almost definitly wouldn't work, but something has got to be better than the alternative, somewhat inevitable Armageddon: then the only winners are the Fundementalist Christians.

I call Bullshit. "people in general dying" and "brownish people" does not jibe with that in the least. If you sit around and chear for war, then you get excited about "people in general dying". The "brownish people" part was more of an emotional response to what is a pretty sad state of affairs. you know, it really IS a sad state of affairs. but what really is the solution over there? will any nation really be the first to lay down their guns? should Israel be the first, only to let her enemies use that as the chance they've been waiting for to storm in and anhilate her? will there ever be peace in the middle east? I don't know what the answer is but this clearly isn't it. Maybe there could be a single democratic state in Isreal (including the West Bank and Gaza) where Muslims and Jews have equal access to social, political, and economic resourses.

I call Bullshit. "people in general dying" and "brownish people" does not jibe with that in the least. If you sit around and chear for war, then you get excited about "people in general dying". The "brownish people" part was more of an emotional response to what is a pretty sad state of affairs.

Does the idea of WWIII excite you, or is it just the people dying in general, or just brownish people dying? Once again another person has shown that they know absoultely nothing about me, and in this instance like many others, they are completely wrong. I wonder, is it that people can't read anymore, or is that that have to add verbage to a statement in order to feel justified in disliking the author, or the message? I inferred that it is your contention that Israel unleashing its Armor and Infantry on Lebonon is a good thing. Am I wrong? If I'm wrong and you were just merely making a statement than I apologize.

Does the idea of WWIII excite you, or is it just the people dying in general, or just brownish people dying?

Correct. It listens for words, it does not listen to the conversation which is a complilation of words to form an idea or express a thought. Glad you finally agree. So what you're saying as long as I don't use certain words it will not flag/listen to my conversation. So, basicly if I'm not doing anything wrong I have nothing to worry about. That seems reasonable enough to me. If we can't trust George and company who can we trust? I'm sure it's a matter of national security. Christ I feel more secure already. Thanks, big bro He's saying that it listens to EVERY word you say, and if you say a bad word it listens even harder. The founding fathers must be spinning in their graves. The founding father's would have indicted most members of this administration as traitors. Give me liberty or give me death is now: Give me liberty or give me security. If you want to maximum security go live in prison.

Correct. It listens for words, it does not listen to the conversation which is a complilation of words to form an idea or express a thought. Glad you finally agree. So what you're saying as long as I don't use certain words it will not flag/listen to my conversation. So, basicly if I'm not doing anything wrong I have nothing to worry about. That seems reasonable enough to me. If we can't trust George and company who can we trust? I'm sure it's a matter of national security. Christ I feel more secure already. Thanks, big bro

'In the case of the stem cell bill, Bush left no room for compromise. Using federal money for research on new stem cell lines - even those derived from embryos created for fertility treatments and otherwise slated for disposal, as specified in the measure - would mean sanctioning the destruction of human life, the president says.' How does he explain killing 50,000+ Iraqi civillians? I'd say he doesn't have much of a problem sanctioning the destruction of human life. I guess it all depends on how you define life. I think it is quite scary that in 21st century the most powerful country on earth could elect such a backwoods leader. Just remember this is the same guy when asked about evolution his response was: "the jury's still out on that one"

Here are the flaws I found in thier analysis. The statements in bold are quoted from your link. The Jewish people base their claim to the Land of Israel on at least four premises: 1) the Jewish people settled and developed the land Prior to 1948 there were approx 10,000 Jews living in the land that is now Israel, while there were over 1,000,000 Arabs inhabiting the land. Sorry it’s hard to claim squatters rights after 2,000 years. 2) the international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people I’m not disputing that. I’m merely raising the question (which you did not answer) what your reaction would be if similar sovereignty was granted to Native Americans and Africans in the current territory that encompasses the United States? 3) the territory was captured in defensive wars What defensive wars were these? The Six Day War? 4) God promised the land to the patriarch Abraham. It’s rather hard to argue with God. Maybe he changed his mind. Maybe somebody misinterpreted the revelation: When asked is the good good because the Gods says its good or do the Gods say its good because its good. Socrates responded that the Gods say its good because its good, because man can always misinterpret the revelation.

ooopppps http://www.zoa.org/2002/02/palestinian_ara.htm * 13 Americans have been murdered, and 38 wounded, since the current Palestinian Arab violence against Israel began in September 2000. * 25 Americans have been murdered, and 63 wounded, by Palestinian Arab terrorists since the signing of the Oslo accords in 1993. * At least 92 Americans have been murdered, and 106 wounded, by Palestinian Arab terrorists since 1968. Where were these Americans killed?

How does our relationship with Israel help us fight OUR war on terror?

Israel gets an enormous amount of fiscal and military aide from the US. As well as access to the veto power that the US exercises any time a resolution in the UN Security Council condemns the Israelis’ treatment of Palestinians. How does it serve the US to be allied with Israel? Fighting the war on terror is hardly a valid answer as Palestinians have never attacked the US; if anything the United States’ unconditional support (i.e. support without debate or expectation) provides motivation to Terrorists that are hostile towards us. The argument that they are the only stable democracy in the Middle East doesn’t hold much water, as they are a religious state that an enormous part of the population has no rights based on their ethnicity/religion. I think the US should worry about protecting the welfare of our citizens. Protecting our oil supply should be one of the top priorities of our government. Our primary concern in the Middle East should be fostering an environment that promotes stable oil production and acquisition. I think there should be some debate about the United States’ position in the region and our unconditional support for Israel. There should be at least as much time to openly debate this issue as Congress spends debating steroids and gay marriage.

Because they are the good guys, and their enemies are the bad guys. Neither side is pure, but it is certain that Israel is not a threat to the rest of the world, but the evil of the islamofacists is, and they are now affecting all of the world. Time to pick sides. I'll stand on the side that does not think Hitler was a good guy. Many don't know enough about history to understand that it really is that simple: http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/IsraelPalestineTruth.htm Who poses a greater threat to the rest of the World? A state with a Nuclear arsenal, and a histroy of aggression and hostility towards its neighbors; or a group of displaced people that really have no orgranized modern military and resort to blowing themselves up as a response to 21st Century weapondry? Is it terrorism if the bomb isn't made by a defense contractor? If the international community decided that some other oppressed group like say all people of African and Native American decent had a reporative and histrorical entitlement to the United States, and all non entitled people had to move to some section of the US, while the remainder of the land mass was turned over to the entitled groups. Would you just accept it? In your opinion, are all those that question or oppose the policies of the state of Israel anti-Semitic?

Acutally about 1.3% of the population are Jewish. All but 7 states have less than 1% Jewish population. http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/Demographics/map_demographics.htm The State of Israel has an enourmous lobbying influence. I've never heard any substantial congressional debate over any aspect of the Israeli-Palistinian conflict; yet every other issue no matter how trivial and insignificant gets debated. Are steriods and gay marriage more important than Israeli-Palistinian conflict?

"Five years after the attacks on the United States, the Bush administration faces the prospect of reworking key elements of its anti-terrorism effort in light of challenges from the courts, Congress and European allies crucial to counterterrorism operations." Three groups that shouldn't be trusted. We need to 'stay the course' and do what the German's did after the Reichstag Fire; suspend the legislative branch and ignore appeals from the international community. That way we can guarentee our security. I just wish Bush could run for a third term.

I'd always more or less skipped breakfast other than the occassional bagel at Starbucks. Last fall, I began eating a better and started eating breakfast every morning. After the first month, changing nothing else in my diet/exersise habits I ended up losing 6 pounds just adding breakfast (I'm 5'11'' around 155) I skipped it yesterday for the first time in a while and noticed a tremendous difference all day. If you've never been a breakfast eater for what ever reason, give it a try for a month and see how you feel.

Often had physically, sexually, or emotionally abusive father or father figure growing up.

well, that's only natural right? I mean, you wouldn't expect him to stand up when he's dead, would you? sorry. Great observation!

I heard the same story on NPR this morning. I've been rather skeptical of the United States' relationship with Israel given their human rights record, their nuclear warchest, and the hostility they envoke in the region. I read the first third of the paper over lunch and I found parts of it rather staggering. So far I've found it to be pretty objective. Citing facts and statitisics for both sides of the argument. I'm looking forward to finishing it. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html